Multiyear Procurement (MYP) and Block Buy
Contracting in Defense Acquisition:
Background and Issues for Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
Moshe Schwartz
Specialist in Defense Acquisition
July 11, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41909
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

Summary
Multiyear procurement (MYP) and block buy contracting (BBC) are special contracting
mechanisms that Congress permits the Department of Defense (DOD) to use for a limited number
of defense acquisition programs. Compared to the standard or default approach of annual
contracting, MYP and BBC have the potential for reducing weapon procurement costs by several
percent.
Under annual contracting, DOD uses one or more contracts for each year’s worth of procurement
of a given kind of item. Under MYP, DOD instead uses a single contract for two to five years’
worth of procurement of a given kind of item without having to exercise a contract option for
each year after the first year. DOD needs congressional approval for each use of MYP. There is a
permanent statute governing MYP contracting—10 U.S.C. 2306b. Under this statute, a program
must meet several criteria to qualify for MYP.
Compared with estimated costs under annual contracting, estimated savings for programs being
proposed for MYP have ranged from less than 5% to more than 15%, depending on the
particulars of the program in question, with many estimates falling in the range of 5% to 10%. In
practice, actual savings from using MYP rather than annual contracting can be difficult to observe
or verify because of cost growth during the execution of the contract, resulting from changes in
the program independent of the use of MYP rather than annual contracting.
BBC is similar to MYP in that it permits DOD to use a single contract for more than one year’s
worth of procurement of a given kind of item without having to exercise a contract option for
each year after the first year. BBC is also similar to MYP in that DOD needs congressional
approval for each use of BBC. BBC differs from MYP in the following ways:
• There is no permanent statute governing the use of BBC.
• There is no requirement that BBC be approved in both a DOD appropriations act
and an act other than a DOD appropriations act.
• Programs being considered for BBC do not need to meet any legal criteria to
qualify for BBC, because there is no permanent statute governing the use of BBC
that establishes such criteria.
• A BBC contract can cover more than five years of planned procurements.
• Economic order quantity (EOQ) authority—the authority to bring forward
selected key components of the items to be procured under the contract and
purchase the components in batch form during the first year or two of the
contract—does not come automatically as part of BBC authority because there is
no permanent statute governing the use of BBC that includes EOQ authority as
an automatic feature.
• BBC contracts are less likely to include cancellation penalties.
Potential issues for Congress concerning MYP and BBC include whether to use MYP and BBC in
the future more frequently, less frequently, or about as frequently as they are currently used, and
whether to create a permanent statute to govern the use of BBC, analogous to the permanent
statute that governs the use of MYP.
Congressional Research Service

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition


Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Issues for Congress ............................................................................................................... 1
Terminology and Scope of Report ......................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................................ 2
Multiyear Procurement (MYP).............................................................................................. 2
MYP In Brief .................................................................................................................. 2
Potential Savings Under MYP......................................................................................... 3
Permanent Statute Governing MYP................................................................................. 4
Potential Consequences of Not Fully Funding an MYP Contract ..................................... 6
Effect on Flexibility for Making Procurement Changes ................................................... 6
Congressional Approval .................................................................................................. 6
Block Buy Contracting (BBC)............................................................................................... 8
BBC In Brief................................................................................................................... 8
Terminology Alert: Block Buy Contracting vs. Block Buys ............................................. 9
Potential Savings Under BBC ......................................................................................... 9
Frequency of Use of BBC ............................................................................................. 10
Using BBC Rather than MYP........................................................................................ 10
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................... 10
Frequency of Using MYP and BBC..................................................................................... 10
Permanent Statute for BBC ................................................................................................. 11
Legislative Activity for FY2012 ................................................................................................ 12
FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/S. 1253)....................................... 12
House ........................................................................................................................... 12
Senate ........................................................................................................................... 13
FY2012 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 2219).................................................................... 16
House ........................................................................................................................... 16

Tables
Table A-1. Programs Approved for MYP in Annual DOD Appropriations Acts Since
FY1990.................................................................................................................................. 18

Appendixes
Appendix. Programs Approved for MYP in Annual DOD Appropriations Acts Since
FY1990.................................................................................................................................. 18

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 20

Congressional Research Service

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

Introduction
Issues for Congress
This report provides background information and issues for Congress on multiyear procurement
(MYP) and block buy contracting (BBC),1 which are special contracting mechanisms that
Congress permits the Department of Defense (DOD) to use for a limited number of defense
acquisition programs. Compared to the standard or default approach of annual contracting, MYP
and BBC have the potential for reducing weapon procurement costs by several percent.
Potential issues for Congress concerning MYP and BBC include whether to use MYP and BBC in
the future more frequently, less frequently, or about as frequently as they are currently used, and
whether to create a permanent statute to govern the use of BBC, analogous to the permanent
statute (10 U.S.C. 2306b) that governs the use of MYP. Congress’s decisions on these issues
could affect defense acquisition practices, defense funding requirements, and the defense
industrial base.
Terminology and Scope of Report
In discussing MYP and BBC, it can be helpful to distinguish funding approaches from contracting
mechanisms. The two are often mixed together in discussions of DOD acquisition, sometimes
leading to confusion. Stated briefly:
• Funding approaches are ways that Congress can appropriate funding for
weapon procurement programs, so that DOD can then put them under contract.
Examples of funding approaches include traditional full funding (the standard or
default approach), incremental funding, and advance appropriations.2 Any of
these funding approaches might make use of advance procurement (AP)
funding.3
• Contracting mechanisms are ways for DOD to contract for the procurement of
weapons systems, once funding for those systems has been appropriated by
Congress. Examples of contracting mechanisms include annual contracting (the
standard or default approach), MYP, and BBC.

1 MYP is an established acronym for multiyear procurement. BBC is not an established acronym for block buy
contracting, but is used in this CRS report for purposes of convenience.
2 For more on these three funding approaches, see CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy—
Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Stephen Daggett, and CRS Report RL32776,
Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative Funding Approaches—Background and Options for Congress, by Ronald
O'Rourke. Advance appropriations, which are not to be confused with advance procurement (AP) funding (see footnote
3), are essentially a legislatively locked-in form of incremental funding. Unlike incremental funding, advance
appropriations qualify under budgeting regulations as a form of full funding.
3 AP funding is provided in one or more years prior to the year of procurement of a weapon system for the procurement
of long-leadtime components—components with long construction times. Such components must be funded prior to the
procurement of the remainder of the weapon system if they are to be ready for installation in the weapon system at the
appropriate point in the construction process. AP funding is a permitted exception to the full funding provision. AP
funding is not to be confused with advance appropriations (see footnote 2).
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

The use of a particular funding approach in a defense acquisition program does not dictate the use
of a particular contracting mechanism. Defense acquisition programs consequently can be
implemented using various combinations of funding approaches and contracting mechanisms.
Most DOD weapon acquisition programs use a combination of traditional full funding and annual
contracting. A few programs, particularly certain Navy shipbuilding programs, use incremental
funding as their funding approach. A limited number of DOD programs use MYP as their
contracting approach, and to date at least two defense acquisition programs (both Navy
shipbuilding programs) use or have used BBC as their contracting approach.
This report focuses on the contracting approaches of MYP and BBC and how they compare to
annual contracting. Other CRS reports discuss the funding approaches of traditional full funding,
incremental funding, and advance appropriations.4
Background
Multiyear Procurement (MYP)
MYP In Brief
What is MYP, and how does it differ from annual contracting? MYP, also known as multiyear
contracting, is an alternative to the standard or default DOD approach of annual contracting.
Under annual contracting, DOD uses one or more contracts for each year’s worth of procurement
of a given kind of item. Under MYP, DOD instead uses a single contract for two to five years’
worth of procurement of a given kind of item, without having to exercise a contract option for
each year after the first year. DOD needs congressional approval for each use of MYP.
To illustrate the basic difference between MYP and annual contracting, consider a hypothetical
DOD program to procure 20 single-engine aircraft of a certain kind over the five-year period
FY2012-FY2016, at a rate of four aircraft per year:
• Under annual contracting, DOD would issue one or more contracts for each
year’s procurement of four aircraft. After Congress funds the procurement of the
first four aircraft in FY2012, DOD would issue one or more contracts (or
exercise a contract option) for those four aircraft. The next year, after Congress
funds the procurement of the next four aircraft in FY2013, DOD would issue one
or more contracts (or exercise a contract option) for those four aircraft, and so on.
• Under MYP, DOD would issue one contract covering all 20 aircraft to be
procured during the five-year period FY2012-FY2016. DOD would award this
contract in FY2012, at the beginning of the five-year period, following
congressional approval to use MYP for the program, and congressional
appropriation of the FY2012 funding for the program. To continue the
implementation of the contract over the next four years, DOD would request the

4 See footnote 2 for citations to these reports. Appropriating funding for a program and placing a program under
contract are steps in a larger sequence of budget-related events that includes authorization, appropriation, obligation,
and outlays. For a general discussion of this sequence, see CRS Report 98-721, Introduction to the Federal Budget
Process, coordinated by Bill Heniff Jr.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

FY2013 funding for the program as part of DOD’s proposed FY2013 budget, the
FY2014 funding as part of DOD’s proposed FY2014 budget, and so on.
Potential Savings Under MYP
How much can MYP save? Compared with estimated costs under annual contracting, estimated
savings for programs being proposed for MYP have ranged from less than 5% to more than 15%,
depending on the particulars of the program in question, with many estimates falling in the range
of 5% to 10%. In practice, actual savings from using MYP rather than annual contracting can be
difficult to observe or verify because of cost growth during the execution of the contract, resulting
from changes in the program independent of the use of MYP rather than annual contracting.5
How does MYP potentially save money? Compared to annual contracting, using MYP can in
principle reduce the cost of the weapons being procured in two primary ways:
• Contractor optimization of workforce and production facilities. An MYP
contract gives the contractor (e.g., an airplane manufacturer or shipbuilder)
confidence that a multiyear stream of business of a known volume will very
likely materialize. This confidence can permit the contractor to make investments
in the firm’s workforce and production facilities that are intended to optimize the
facility for the production of the items being procured under the contract. Such
investments can include payments for retaining or training workers, or for
building, expanding, or modernizing production facilities. Under annual
contracting, the manufacturer might not have enough confidence about its future
stream of business to make these kinds of investments, or might be unable to
convince its parent firm to finance them.
• Economic order quantity (EOQ) purchases of selected long-leadtime
components. Under an MYP contract, DOD is permitted to bring forward
selected key components of the items to be procured under the contract and to
purchase the components in batch form during the first year or two of the
contract. In the hypothetical example introduced earlier, using MYP could permit
DOD to purchase, say, the 20 engines for the 20 aircraft in the first year or two of
the five-year contract. Procuring selected components in this manner under an
MYP contract is called an economic order quantity (EOQ) purchase.6 EOQ
purchases can reduce the procurement cost of the weapons being procured under
the MYP contract by allowing the manufacturers of components to take

5 A 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report stated that
DOD does not have a formal mechanism for tracking multiyear results against original expectations
and makes few efforts to validate whether actual savings were achieved by multiyear procurement.
It does not maintain comprehensive central records and historical information that could be used to
enhance oversight and knowledge about multiyear performance to inform and improve future
multiyear procurement (MYP) candidates. DOD and defense research centers officials said it is
difficult to assess results because of the lack of historical information on multiyear contracts,
comparable annual costs, and the dynamic acquisition environment.
Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] DOD’s Practices and Processes for Multiyear
Procurement Should Be Improved, GAO-08-298, February 2008, p. 3.
6 The term EOQ is occasionally used in discussions of defense acquisition, somewhat loosely, to refer to any high-
quantity or batch order of items, even those that do not take place under MYP or BBC. As a general matter, however,
EOQs as described here occur only within MYP and block buy contracts.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

maximum advantage of production economies of scale that are possible with
batch orders.7
What gives the contractor confidence that the multiyear stream of business will materialize? At
least two things give the contractor confidence that DOD will not terminate an MYP contract and
that the multiyear stream of business consequently will materialize:
• For a program to qualify for MYP, DOD must certify, among other things, that
the minimum need for the items to be purchased is expected to remain
substantially unchanged during the contract in terms of production rate,
procurement rate, and total quantities.
• Perhaps more important to the contractor, MYP contracts include a cancellation
penalty intended to reimburse a contractor for costs that the contractor has
incurred (i.e., investments the contractor has made) in anticipation of the work
covered under the MYP contract. The undesirability of paying a cancellation
penalty acts as a disincentive for the government against canceling the contract.
(And if the contract is canceled, the cancellation penalty helps to make the
contractor whole.)8
Permanent Statute Governing MYP
Is there a permanent statute governing MYP contracting? There is a permanent statute
governing MYP contracting—10 U.S.C. 2306b. The statute was created by Section 909 of the
FY1982 Department of Defense Authorization Act (S. 815/P.L. 97-86 of December 1, 1981),
revised and reorganized by Section 1022 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (S.
1587/P.L. 103-355 of October 13, 1994), and further amended on several occasions since. DOD’s
use of MYP contracting is further governed by DOD acquisition regulations.

7 A 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on multiyear contracting lists five areas of savings, most of
which are covered in the two general areas of savings outlined above. One of GAO’s five areas of savings—limited
engineering changes due to design stability—can also occur in programs that use annual contracting. The GAO report
states:
Multiyear procurement can potentially save money and improve the defense industrial base by
permitting the more efficient use of a contractor’s resources. Multiyear contracts are expected to
achieve lower unit costs compared to annual contracts through one or more of the following
sources: (1) purchase of parts and materials in economic order quantities (EOQ), (2) improved
production processes and efficiencies, (3) better utilized industrial facilities, (4) limited engineering
changes due to design stability during the multiyear period, and (5) cost avoidance by reducing the
burden of placing and administering annual contracts. Multiyear procurement also offers
opportunities to enhance the industrial base by providing defense contractors a longer and more
stable time horizon for planning and investing in production and by attracting subcontractors,
vendors, and suppliers. However, multiyear procurement also entails certain risks that must be
balanced against potential benefits, such as the increased costs to the government should the
multiyear contract be changed or canceled and decreased annual budget flexibility for the program
and across DOD’s portfolio of weapon systems. Additionally, multiyear contracts often require
greater budgetary authority in the earlier years of the procurement to economically buy parts and
materials for multiple years of production than under a series of annual buys.
Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] DOD’s Practices and Processes for Multiyear
Procurement Should Be Improved, GAO-08-298, February 2008, pp. 4-5.
8 Annual contracts can also include cancellation penalties.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

Under this statute, what criteria must a program meet to qualify for MYP? 10 U.S.C. 2306b(a)
states that to qualify for MYP, a program must meet several criteria, including the following.
• Substantial savings. DOD must estimate that using an MYP contract would
result in “substantial savings” compared with using annual contracting.
• Realistic cost estimates. DOD’s estimates of the cost of the MYP contract and
the anticipated savings must be realistic.
• Stable need for the items. DOD must expect that its minimum need for the
items will remain substantially unchanged during the contract in terms of
production rate, procurement rate, and total quantities.
• Stable design for the items. The design for the items to be acquired must be
stable, and the technical risks associated with the items must not be excessive.
Section 811 of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4986/P.L. 110-181 of
January 28, 2008) amended 10 U.S.C. 2306b to require the Secretary of Defense to certify in
writing, by no later than March 1 of the year in which DOD requests MYP authority for a
program, that these and certain other criteria have been met. It also requires that the Secretary
provide the congressional defense committees with the basis for this determination, as well as a
cost analysis performed by DOD’s office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)
that supports the findings.9 Section 811 further amended 10 U.S.C. 2306b to require the
following:
• Sufficient prior deliveries to determine whether estimated unit costs are
realistic. A sufficient number of the type of item to be acquired under the
proposed MYP contract must have been delivered under previous contracts at or
within the most current estimates of the program acquisition unit cost or
procurement unit cost to determine whether current estimates of such unit costs
are realistic.
• No Nunn-McCurdy critical cost growth breaches within the last five years.
The system being proposed for an MYP contract must not have experienced
within five years of the anticipated award date of the MYP contract a critical cost
growth breach as defined under the Nunn-McCurdy act (10 U.S.C. 2433).10
• Fixed-price type contract. The proposed MYP contract must be a fixed-price
type contract.
What is meant by “substantial savings”? The meaning of “substantial savings” is open to
interpretation and might depend on the circumstances of the program in question. In practice,
estimated savings of at least 5% might be judged substantial, and estimated savings in the range
of 10% (or more) are more likely to be judged substantial. The amount of savings required under
10 U.S.C. 2306b to qualify has changed over time; the requirement for “substantial savings” was

9 Section 811 states that the cost analysis is to be performed by DOD’s Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG). In a
subsequent DOD reorganization, CAIG was made part of CAPE.
10 For more on the Nunn-McCurdy provision, see CRS Report R41293, The Nunn-McCurdy Act: Background,
Analysis, and Issues for Congress , by Moshe Schwartz.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

established by Section 808(a)(2) of the FY1991 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R.
4739/P.L. 101-510 of November 5, 1990), which amended 10 U.S.C. 2306b in this regard.11
What is meant by “stable design”? The term “stable design” is generally understood to mean that
the design for the items to be procured is not expected to change substantially during the period
of the contract. Having a stable design is generally demonstrated by having already built at least a
few items to that design (or in the case of a shipbuilding program, at least one ship to that design)
and concluding, through testing and operation of those items, that the design does not require any
substantial changes during the period of the contract.
Potential Consequences of Not Fully Funding an MYP Contract
What happens if Congress does not provide the annual funding requested by DOD to continue
the implementation of the contract? If Congress does not provide the funding requested by DOD
to continue the implementation of an MYP contract, DOD would be required to renegotiate,
suspend, or terminate the contract. Terminating the contract could require the government to pay
a cancellation penalty to the contractor. Renegotiating or suspending the contract could also have
a financial impact.
Effect on Flexibility for Making Procurement Changes
What effect does using MYP have on flexibility for making procurement changes? A principal
potential disadvantage of using MYP is that it can reduce Congress’s and DOD’s flexibility for
making changes (especially reductions) in procurement programs in future years in response to
changing strategic or budgetary circumstances, at least without incurring cancellation penalties.
In general, the greater the portion of DOD’s procurement account that is executed under MYP
contracts, the greater the potential loss of flexibility. The use of MYP for executing some portion
of the DOD procurement account means that if policymakers in future years decide to reduce
procurement spending below previously planned levels, the spending reduction might fall more
heavily on procurement programs that do not use MYP, which in turn might result in a less-than-
optimally balanced DOD procurement effort.
Congressional Approval
How does Congress approve the use of MYP? Congress approves the use of MYP on a case-by-
case basis, typically in response to requests by DOD.12 Congressional approval for MYP contracts
with a value of more than $500 million must occur in two places: an annual DOD appropriations
act13 and an act other than the annual DOD appropriations act.14

11 For a discussion of the evolution of the savings requirement under 10 U.S.C. 2306b, including a figure graphically
summarizing the legislative history of the requirement, see Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:]
DOD’s Practices and Processes for Multiyear Procurement Should Be Improved, GAO-08-298, February 2008, pp. 21-
22, including Figure 3 on p. 22.
12 The Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341) prohibits the making of contracts in advance of appropriations. A
multiple-year commitment may be made when authorized by Congress by entering into a firm commitment for one
year and making the government’s liability for future years contingent on funds becoming available.
13 Paragraph (3) of subsection (l) of 10 U.S.C. 2306b states, “The head of an agency may not initiate a multiyear
procurement contract for any system (or component thereof) if the value of the multiyear contract would exceed
$500,000,000 unless authority for the contract is specifically provided in an appropriations Act.”
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

In annual DOD appropriations acts, the provision permitting the use of MYP for one or more
defense acquisition programs is typically included in the title containing general provisions,
which typically is Title VIII.
An annual defense authorization act is usually the act other than an appropriations act in which
provisions granting authority for using MYP contracting on individual defense acquisition
programs are included. Such provisions typically occur in Title I of the defense authorization act,
the title covering procurement programs.
Provisions in which Congress approves the use of MYP for a particular defense acquisition
program may include specific conditions for that program in addition to the requirements and
conditions of 10 U.S.C. 2306b.
How often is MYP used? MYP is used for a limited number of DOD acquisition programs. A
2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report stated:
Although DOD had been entering into multiyear contracts on a limited basis prior to the
1980s, the Department of Defense Authorization Act, [for fiscal year] 1982,15 codified the
authority for DOD to procure on a multiyear basis major weapon systems that meet certain
criteria. Since that time, DOD has annually submitted various weapon systems as multiyear
procurement candidates for congressional authorization. Over the past 25 years, Congress
has authorized the use of multiyear procurement for approximately 140 acquisition
programs, including some systems approved more than once. 16
The GAO report stated that the total dollar value of MYP contracts remained more or less stable
between FY2000 and FY2007 at about $10 billion per year. The report also showed that since the
total size of DOD’s procurement budget increased during this period, the portion of DOD’s total
procurement budget accounted for by programs using MYP contracts declined from about 17% in
FY2000 to about 11% in FY2007.17
As shown in the Appendix, annual DOD appropriations acts since FY1990 typically have
approved the use of MYP for one or a few DOD programs each year. The three most recent DOD
appropriations acts (for FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011) have each approved one DOD program
for MYP.

(...continued)
14 Paragraph (3) of subsection (i) of 10 U.S.C. 2306b states, “In the case of the Department of Defense, a multiyear
contract in an amount equal to or greater than $500,000,000 may not be entered into for any fiscal year under this
section unless the contract is specifically authorized by law in an Act other than an appropriations Act.”
15 S. 815/P.L. 97-86 of December 1, 1981, Section 909.
16 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] DOD’s Practices and Processes for Multiyear
Procurement Should Be Improved, GAO-08-298, February 2008, p. 5.
17 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] DOD’s Practices and Processes for Multiyear
Procurement Should Be Improved, GAO-08-298, February 2008, p. 7, including Figure 1. The GAO report says $10
million rather than $10 billion, but this appears to be a typo, as shown by Y-axis dollar scale of Figure 1.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

Block Buy Contracting (BBC)
BBC In Brief
What is BBC, and how does it compare to MYP? BBC is similar to MYP in that it permits DOD
to use a single contract for more than one year’s worth of procurement of a given kind of item
without having to exercise a contract option for each year after the first year.18 BBC is also
similar to MYP in that DOD needs congressional approval for each use of BBC.
BBC differs from MYP in the following ways:
• There is no permanent statute governing the use of BBC.
• There is no requirement that BBC be approved in both a DOD appropriations act
and an act other than a DOD appropriations act.
• Programs being considered for BBC do not need to meet any legal criteria to
qualify for BBC because there is no permanent statute governing the use of BBC
that establishes such criteria.
• A BBC contract can cover more than five years of planned procurements. The
BBC contracts currently being used by the Navy for procuring Littoral Combat
Ships (LCSs), for example, cover a period of six years (FY2011-FY2016).
• Economic order quantity (EOQ) authority does not come automatically as part of
BBC authority because there is no permanent statute governing the use of BBC
that includes EOQ authority as an automatic feature. To provide EOQ authority
as part of a BBC contract, the provision granting authority for using BBC in a
program may need to state explicitly that the authority to use BBC includes the
authority to use EOQ.
• BBC contracts are less likely to include cancellation penalties.
Given the one key similarity between BBC and MYP (the use of a single contract for more than
one year’s worth of procurement), and the various differences between BBC and MYP, BBC
might be thought of as a less formal stepchild of MYP.
When and why was BBC invented? BBC was invented by Section 121(b) of the FY1998
National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1119/P.L. 105-85 of November 18, 1997), which
granted the Navy the authority to use a single contract for the procurement of the first four
Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines. The four boats were scheduled to be procured during
the five-year period FY1998-FY2002 in annual quantities of 1-1-0-1-1. Congress provided the
authority granted in Section 121(b) at least in part to reduce the combined procurement cost of the
four submarines. Using MYP was not an option for the Virginia-class program at that time

18 Using the hypothetical example introduced earlier involving the procurement of 20 aircraft over the five-year period
FY2012-FY2016, DOD would follow the same general path as it would under MYP: DOD would issue one contract
covering all 20 aircraft in FY2012, at the beginning of the five-year period, following congressional approval to use
BBC for the program, and congressional appropriation of the FY2012 funding for the program. To continue the
implementation of the contract over the next four years, DOD would request the FY2013 funding for the program as
part of DOD’s proposed FY2013 budget, the FY2014 funding as part of DOD’s proposed FY2014 budget, and so on.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

because the Navy had not even begun, let alone finished, construction of the first Virginia-class
submarine, and consequently could not demonstrate that it had a stable design for the program.
When Section 121(b) was enacted, there was no name for the contracting authority it provided.
The term block buy contracting came into use later, when observers needed a term to refer to the
kind of contracting authority that Congress authorized in Section 121(b). As discussed in the next
section, this can cause confusion, because the term block buy was already being used in
discussions of DOD acquisition to refer to something else.
Terminology Alert: Block Buy Contracting vs. Block Buys
What’s the difference between block buy contacting and block buys? In discussions of defense
procurement, the term “block buy” by itself (without “contracting” at the end) is sometimes used
to refer to something quite different from block buy contracting—namely, the simple act of
funding the procurement of more than one copy of an item in a single year, particularly when no
more than one item of that kind might normally be funded in a single year. For example, when
Congress funded the procurement of two aircraft carriers in FY1983, and another two in FY1988,
these acts were each referred to as block buys, because aircraft carriers are normally procured one
at a time, several years apart from one another. This alternate meaning of the term block buy
predates by many years the emergence of the term block buy contracting.
The term block buy is still used in this alternate manner, which can lead to confusion in
discussions of defense procurement. For example, as part of its FY2012 budget submission, the
Air Force is requesting funding for the procurement of two Advanced Extremely High Frequency
(AEHF) satellites in FY2012, rather than one such satellite in FY2012 and the other in a
subsequent year. The Air Force is referring to this proposal as a block buy—which it is, under the
older use of the term. But it is not an example of block buy contracting. At the same time, Navy
officials sometimes refer to the use of block buy contracts for the first four Virginia-class
submarines, and currently in the LCS program, as block buys, when they might be more
specifically referred to as instances of block buy contracting.
Potential Savings Under BBC
How much can BBC save, compared with MYP? Potential savings under BBC can be less than
those under MYP, for at least two reasons:
• The authority to use BBC might not include authority to use EOQ purchasing,
which, as discussed earlier (see “Potential Savings Under MYP”), is one of the
two principal sources of savings under an MYP contract. The block buy contract
for the first four Virginia-class boats and the current block buy contracts for the
LCS program do not include authority for EOQ purchasing.
• A BBC contract might not include a cancellation penalty (or might include a
more limited one). This can give the contractor less confidence than would be the
case under an MYP contract that the future stream of business will materialize as
planned, which in turn might reduce the amount of money the contractor invests
to optimize its workforce and production facilities for producing the items to be
procured under the contract.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

Frequency of Use of BBC
How frequently has BBC been used? Since its use at the start of the Virginia-class program,
BBC has been used very rarely. The Navy did not use it again in a shipbuilding program until
December 2010, when it awarded two block buy contracts, each covering 10 LCSs to be procured
over the six-year period FY2011-FY2016, to the two LCS builders.19
Using BBC Rather than MYP
When might BBC be suitable as an alternative to MYP? BBC might be particularly suitable as
an alternative to MYP in cases where using a multiyear contract can reduce costs, but the program
in question cannot meet all the statutory criteria needed to qualify for MYP. As shown in the case
of the first four Virginia-class boats, this can occur at or near the start of a procurement program,
when design stability has not been demonstrated through the production of at least a few of the
items to be procured (or, for a shipbuilding program, at least one ship).
Issues for Congress
Potential issues for Congress concerning MYP and BBC include whether to use MYP and BBC in
the future more frequently, less frequently, or about as frequently as they are currently used, and
whether to create a permanent statute to govern the use of BBC, analogous to the permanent
statute that governs the use of MYP.
Frequency of Using MYP and BBC
Should MYP and BBC in the future be used more frequently, less frequently, or about as
frequently as they are currently used? Supporters of using MYP and BBC more frequently in the
future might argue the following:
• Since MYP and BBC can reduce procurement costs, making greater use of MYP
and BBC can help DOD get more value out of its available procurement funding.
This can be particularly important if DOD’s budget in real (i.e., inflation-
adjusted) terms remains flat or declines in coming years, as many observers
anticipate.
• The risks of using MYP have been reduced by Section 811 of the FY2008
National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4986/P.L. 110-181 of January 28,
2008), which amended 10 U.S.C. 2306b to strengthen the process for ensuring
that programs proposed for MYP meet certain criteria (see “Permanent Statute
Governing MYP”).
Supporters of using MYP and BBC less frequently in the future, or at least no more frequently
than now, might argue the following:

19 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues,
and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

• Using MYP and BBC more frequently would further reduce Congress’s and
DOD’s flexibility for making changes in DOD procurement programs in future
years in response to changing strategic or budgetary circumstances. The risks of
reducing flexibility in this regard are increased now because of uncertainties in
the current strategic environment and because efforts to reduce federal budget
deficits could include reducing DOD spending, which could lead to a
reassessment of U.S. defense strategy and associated DOD acquisition programs.
• Since actual savings from using MYP and BBC rather than annual contracting
can be difficult to observe or verify, it is not clear that the financial benefits of
using MYP or BBC more frequently in the future would be worth the resulting
further reduction in Congress’s and DOD’s flexibility for making changes in
procurement programs in future years in response to changing strategic or
budgetary circumstances.
Permanent Statute for BBC
Should Congress create a permanent statute to govern the use of BBC, analogous to the
permanent statute (10 U.S.C. 2306b) that governs the use of MYP? Supporters of creating a
permanent statute to govern the use of BBC might argue the following:
• Such a statute could encourage greater use of BBC, and thereby increase savings
in DOD procurement programs by giving BBC contracting a formal legal
standing and by establishing a clear process for DOD program managers to use in
assessing whether their programs might be considered suitable for BBC.
• Such a statute could make BBC more advantageous by including a provision that
automatically grants EOQ authority to programs using BBC, as well as
provisions establishing qualifying criteria and other conditions intended to reduce
the risks of using BBC.
Opponents of creating a permanent statute to govern the use of BBC might argue the following:
• A key advantage of BBC is that it is not governed by a permanent statute. The
lack of such a statute gives DOD and Congress full flexibility in determining
when and how to use BBC for programs that may not qualify for MYP, but for
which a multiyear contract of some kind might produce substantial savings.
• Such a statute could encourage DOD program managers to pursue their programs
using BBC rather than MYP. This could reduce discipline in DOD multiyear
contracting if the qualifying criteria in the BBC statute are less demanding than
the qualifying criteria in 10 U.S.C. 2306b.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

Legislative Activity for FY2012
FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/S. 1253)
House
Sections 113, 122, and 123 of H.R. 1540, as reported by the House Armed Services Committee
(H.Rept. 112-78 of May 17, 2011), provide authority for MYP contracts beginning in FY2012 for
airframes for Army UH-60M/HH-60M and Navy MH-60R/MH-60S helicopters, for Navy
Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyers, and for mission avionics and common cockpits for
Navy MH-60R/S helicopters, respectively. The title of Section 122 uses the term “multiyear
funding” but nevertheless provides authority for an MYP contract.
The text of Section 113 is as follows:
SEC. 113. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR AIRFRAMES FOR
ARMY UH-60M/HH-60M HELICOPTERS AND NAVY MH-60R/MH-60S
HELICOPTERS.
(a) Authority for Multiyear Procurement- Subject to section 2306b of title 10, United States
Code, the Secretary of the Army may enter into one or more multiyear contracts, beginning
with the fiscal year 2012 program year, for the procurement of airframes for UH-60M/HH-
60M helicopters and, acting as the executive agent for the Department of the Navy, for the
procurement of airframes for MH-60R/S helicopters.
(b) Condition for Out-year Contract Payments- A contract entered into under subsection (a)
shall provide that any obligation of the United States to make a payment under the contract
for a fiscal year after fiscal year 2012 is subject to the availability of appropriations for that
purpose for such later fiscal year.
The text of Section 122 is as follows:
SEC. 122. MULTIYEAR FUNDING FOR PROCUREMENT OF ARLEIGH BURKE-
CLASS DESTROYERS.
(a) Authority for Multiyear Procurement- Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (7) of section
2306b(i) of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of the Navy may enter into a multiyear
contract, beginning with the fiscal year 2012 program year, for the procurement of DDG-51
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Government-furnished equipment associated with such
destroyers.
(b) Report of Findings-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 30 days before the date on which a contract is awarded
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
report on such contract containing the findings required under subsection (a) of section
2306b of title 10, United States Code, including the analysis described in paragraph (2) of
this subsection.
(2) DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS- In conducting an analysis of
substantial savings pursuant to subsection (a)(1) of such section 2306b, the Secretary shall
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

employ a full-scale analysis of the anticipated cost avoidance resulting from the use of
multiyear procurement and the potential benefit that any accrued savings might have to
future shipbuilding programs if such savings are used for further ship construction.
(c) Condition of Out-year Contract Payments- A contract entered into under subsection (a)
shall provide that any obligation of the United States to make a payment under the contract is
subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose.
The text of Section 123 is as follows:
SEC. 123. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR MISSION AVIONICS
AND COMMON COCKPITS FOR NAVY MH-60R/S HELICOPTERS.
(a) Authority for Multiyear Procurement- Subject to section 2306b of title 10, United States
Code, the Secretary of the Navy may enter into one or more multiyear contracts, beginning
with the fiscal year 2012 program year, for the procurement of mission avionics and
common cockpits for MH-60R/S helicopters.
(b) Condition for Out-year Contract Payments- A contract entered into under subsection (a)
shall provide that any obligation of the United States to make a payment under the contract
for a fiscal year after fiscal year 2012 is subject to the availability of appropriations for that
purpose for such later fiscal year.
The committee’s report also states the following:
CH–47F Chinook helicopter
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the CH–47F Chinook helicopter includes funding for
the fifth year of a 5-year multiyear procurement contract. The committee notes that this
contract has provided stability to the program and savings to the taxpayer of over $450.0
million. In view of the continuing need for sustained procurement of the CH–47F, the
Army’s acquisition strategy calls for a second 5-year multiyear contract beginning in fiscal
year 2013. The committee agrees with the Army strategy to continue procurement with
substantial cost savings for the CH–47F, and encourages the Department of Defense to
include a request for authority for a new multiyear contract in the fiscal year 2013 budget
submission. (p. 22)
Senate
Sections 121 and 154 of S. 1253, as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee (S.Rept.
112-26 of June 22, 2011), provide authority for MYP contracts beginning in FY2012 for mission
avionics and common cockpits for Navy MH-60R/S helicopters and for airframes for Army UH-
60M/HH-60M and Navy MH-60R/MH-60S helicopters, respectively.
The text of Section 121 is as follows:
SEC. 121. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR MISSION AVIONICS
AND COMMON COCKPITS FOR NAVY MH-60R/S HELICOPTERS.
(a) Authority for Multiyear Procurement- Subject to section 2306b of title 10, United States
Code, the Secretary of the Navy may enter into a multiyear contract or contracts, beginning
with the fiscal year 2012 program year, for the procurement of mission avionics and
common cockpits for MH-60R/S helicopters.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

(b) Condition for Out-Year Contract Payments- A contract entered into under subsection (a)
shall provide that any obligation of the United States to make a payment under the contract
for a fiscal year after fiscal year 2012 is subject to the availability of appropriations for that
purpose for such later fiscal year.
Regarding Section 121, the committee’s report states the following:
Multiyear procurement authority for mission avionics and common cockpits for Navy
MH–60R/S helicopters (sec. 121)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a multiyear contract to purchase mission avionics and common cockpits for Navy
MH–60R/S helicopters, subject to the Secretary providing a certification that all of the
criteria in section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, have been met.
The Department of the Navy is projecting that contracting for mission avionics and common
cockpits under a multiyear contract would allow the Federal Government to achieve roughly
11.8 percent savings when compared to acquiring the same systems for MH–60 helicopters
using annual contracts. (p. 10)
The text of Section 154 is as follows:
SEC. 154. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR AIRFRAMES FOR
ARMY UH-60M/HH-60M HELICOPTERS AND NAVY MH-60R/MH-60S
HELICOPTERS.
(a) Authority for Multiyear Procurement- Subject to section 2306b of title 10, United States
Code, the Secretary of the Army may enter into one or more multiyear contracts, beginning
with the fiscal year 2012 program year, for the procurement of airframes for UH-60M/HH-
60M helicopters and, acting as the executive agent for the Department of the Navy, for the
procurement of airframes for MH-60R/MH-60S helicopters.
(b) Condition for Out-year Payments- A contract entered into under subsection (a) shall
provide that any obligation of the United States to make a payment under the contract for a
fiscal year after fiscal year 2012 is subject to the availability of appropriations for that
purpose for such later fiscal year.
Regarding Section 154, the committee’s report states the following:
Multiyear procurement authority for airframes for Army UH–60M/HH–60M
helicopters and Navy MH–60R/MH–60S helicopters (sec. 154)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
enter a multiyear procurement contract in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United
States Code, for up to 5 years for Army UH–60M/HH–60M airframes and, acting as
executive agent for the Department of the Navy, for MH–60R/ MH–60S airframes.
The committee notes that this would be the eighth multiyear procurement contract over the
long life of the H–60 helicopter program. The committee believes the program continues to
meet the criteria for multiyear procurement. The committee is concerned, however, that the
current multiyear contract, awarded in 2007, failed to achieve the savings projected at the
time of approval of that contract. When the Department sought authorization for the 2007
multiyear contract, the Army estimated savings of 5.5 percent versus annual procurements.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

In retrospect, the Army now estimates that the contract only achieved savings of 4 percent.
This is not encouraging.
The committee expects that committing future Department leaders, Congress, and taxpayers
to multiyear contracts is justified by the substantial savings that would not be achieved by
annual contracts. The Army is projecting savings for this next multiyear contract, if
authorized, to be 10 percent. This projection may be overly optimistic given the performance
of the last multiyear contract. The committee recommends supporting the Department’s
request for multiyear contract authority, but directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the
congressional defense committees with an annual briefing during the execution of this
contract on progress achieved in meeting or exceeding the projected savings used to justify
granting this authority. This briefing shall accompany the Army’s annual budget request. (p.
15)
The committee’s report also states the following:
The committee notes the Air Force originally proposed to buy the two AEHF [Advanced
Extremely High Frequency] satellites [that are proposed for procurement in FY2012] using
multiyear procurement authority but withdrew this request shortly after the budget was
submitted. Multiyear authority is not suitable for the AEHF proposal, which did not meet the
statutory requirements for multiyear procurement. (p. 11)
The committee’s report also states, in connection with the acquisition of Defense Information
Systems Agency (DISA) satellites, that
[t]he committee believes that before committing to a single satellite for a single theater, in a
purchase or capital lease arrangement, DISA should conduct an Analysis of Alternatives
(AoA) that looks at the possibility of purchasing services on multiple satellites in a multiyear
type approach to ensure lower cost and increased flexibility or other creative approaches to
providing reliable communications. Before entering into a contract to buy or a capital lease
for a single satellite, the committee directs DISA to report on the results of the AoA, and to
provide the analytic basis for the preferred option. (p. 25)
The committee’s report also states the following:
Multiyear procurement savings estimates
The committee has been supportive of the Department’s ability to enter into multiyear
procurement contracts when all of the criteria in section 2306b of title 10, United States
Code, are met. The committee wants to clarify that, in determining “substantial savings”
under the meaning of section 2306b, the Department should be careful to filter claims of
“cost avoidance” that would tend either to: (1) inflate the costs associated with executing
annual procurement contracts; or (2) understate the costs executing multiyear procurement
contracts. The concern is that analysts could use inappropriate optimism to estimate savings
on a multiyear contract, or could overstate the costs of executing an annual procurement
strategy. In either circumstance, the estimated savings could present an erroneous picture of
the potential rewards of approving multiyear authority.
This year, in the case of the request for multiyear procurement authority for mission avionics
and common cockpits for Navy MH-60R/S helicopters, the Navy estimated that the cost of
procuring the MH–60R/S cockpits and mission avionics under a single 5-year multiyear
procurement contract, as compared to five successive single-year procurements, would save
11.2 percent. The Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) directorate agreed with
that estimate.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

After further review, the committee determined that this savings estimate depends on
congressional approval of a follow-on multiyear procurement in fiscal year 2017. If
Congress were to fail to approve that follow-on multiyear procurement, the Navy would have
to find additional funding to reimburse the contractor team for purchase in each of the 5
years comprising the proposed multiyear procurement. While the committee agrees that, in
this limited sense, “cost avoidance” can demonstrate “substantial savings” for purposes of
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, the use of other more nebulous kinds of cost
avoidance for the same purpose would not be appropriate.
If the case is strong for multiyear procurement without a finding of “substantial saving,”
Congress can make exceptions. As provided in report language accompanying section 811 of
the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2008 (Public Law
110–181), multiyear procurement proposals unsupported by a finding of “substantial
savings” may still be approved on the basis of an “exceptionally strong case” that the
proposal meets the other requirements of subsection (a) of section 2306b of title 10, United
States Code. However, actions to inflate the savings estimates that do not bear up under
scrutiny could actually result in denial of multiyear authority when all other requirements
could be met. (Pages 30-31)
FY2012 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 2219)
House
Section 8010 of H.R. 2219, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 112-
110 of June 16, 2011), provides authority for MYP contracts for UH-60M/HH-60M and MH-
60R/MH-60S helicopter airframes and MH-60R/S mission avionics and common cockpits. The
text of Section 8010 is as follows:
Sec. 8010. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be available to initiate: (1) a
multiyear contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in excess of
$20,000,000 in any one year of the contract or that includes an unfunded contingent liability
in excess of $20,000,000; or (2) a contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear
contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 in any
one year, unless the congressional defense committees have been notified at least 30 days in
advance of the proposed contract award: Provided, That no part of any appropriation
contained in this Act shall be available to initiate a multiyear contract for which the
economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at least to the limits of the
Government’s liability: Provided further, That no part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available to initiate multiyear procurement contracts for any systems or
component thereof if the value of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless
specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, That no multiyear procurement contract
can be terminated without 10-day prior notification to the congressional defense committees:
Provided further, That the execution of multiyear authority shall require the use of a present
value analysis to determine lowest cost compared to an annual procurement: Provided
further, That none of the funds provided in this Act may be used for a multiyear contract
executed after the date of the enactment of this Act unless in the case of any such contract—
(1) the Secretary of Defense has submitted to Congress a budget request for full funding of
units to be procured through the contract and, in the case of a contract for procurement of
aircraft, that includes, for any aircraft unit to be procured through the contract for which
procurement funds are requested in that budget request for production beyond advanced
procurement activities in the fiscal year covered by the budget, full funding of procurement
of such unit in that fiscal year;
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

(2) cancellation provisions in the contract do not include consideration of recurring
manufacturing costs of the contractor associated with the production of unfunded units to be
delivered under the contract;
(3) the contract provides that payments to the contractor under the contract shall not be made
in advance of incurred costs on funded units; and
(4) the contract does not provide for a price adjustment based on a failure to award a follow-
on contract.
Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for a multiyear procurement contract
as follows:
UH-60M/HH-60M and MH-60R/MH-60S Helicopter Airframes; and MH-60R/S Mission
Avionics and Common Cockpits.
The committee’s report states the following:
V–22 OSPREY
Fiscal year 2012 marks the final year of the successful V–22 multiyear procurement effort
conducted by the Navy and Air Force. Multiyear procurements are advantageous in that they
provide savings and program stability to platforms when compared to annual procurements.
The drawback is that they reduce available budgetary flexibility. The Committee believes
that if a platform meets the established criteria for a multiyear procurement and there is a
high probability that the platform will be purchased for the period of the multiyear
procurement, a multiyear procurement provides the best value for the taxpayer. The
Committee believes that the performance of the V–22 Osprey aircraft has laid to rest all
doubts about its operational effectiveness. The aircraft has been successfully deployed to
forward operating areas since 2007 and most recently was instrumental in the recovery of a
downed Air Force pilot during the Libya conflict. In view of the continuing need for
sustained procurement of the V–22, the Committee urges the Department of Defense to
consider a request for authority for a new multiyear procurement contract in the fiscal year
2013 budget. (p. 143)
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

Appendix. Programs Approved for MYP in Annual
DOD Appropriations Acts Since FY1990
Table A-1. Programs Approved for MYP in Annual DOD Appropriations Acts
Since FY1990
Fiscal
Year
Bill/Law
Section on MYP
Program(s) Approved for MYP
2011
H.R. 1473/P.L. 112-10
Section 8010 of Division A
Navy MH-60R/S helicopter systems
2010
H.R. 3326/P.L. 111-118
Section 8011 of Division A
F-18 aircraft variants
2009
H.R. 2638/P.L. 110-329
Section 8011 of Division C
SSN Virginia class submarine
2008
H.R. 3222/P.L. 110-116
Section 8010 of Division A
Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter
M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Package
upgrades
M2A3/M3A3 Bradley upgrades
SSN Virginia Classs submarine
2007
H.R. 5631/P.L. 109-289
Section 8008 of Division A
C-17 Globemaster
F-22A
MH-60R Helicopters
MH-60R Helicopter mission equipment
V-22 Osprey
2006
H.R. 2863/P.L. 109-148
Section 8008 of Division A
UH-60/MH-60 helicopters
C-17 Globemaster
Apache Block II Conversion
Modernized Target Acquisition Designation
Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensor (MTADS/PNVS)
2005
H.R. 4613/P.L. 108-287
Section 8008
Lightweight 155mm Howitzer
2004
H.R. 2658/P.L. 108-87
Section 8008
F/A-18 aircraft
E-2C aircraft
Tactical Tomahawk missile
Virginia Class submarine
2003
H.R. 5010/P.L. 107-248
Section 8008
C-130 aircraft
FMTV
F/A-18E and F engine
2002
H.R. 3338/P.L. 107-117
Section 8008 of Division A
UH-60/CH-60 aircraft
C-17
F/A-18E and F engine
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

Fiscal
Year
Bill/Law
Section on MYP
Program(s) Approved for MYP
2001
H.R. 4576/P.L. 106-259
Section 8008
Javelin missile
M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicle
DDG-51 destroyer
UH-60/CH-60 aircraft
2000
H.R. 2561/P.L. 106-79
Section 8008
Longbow Apache helicopter
Javelin missile
Abrams M1A2 Upgrade
F/A-18E/F aircraft
C-17 aircraft
F-16 aircraft
1999
H.R. 4103/P.L. 105-262
Section 8008
E-2C aircraft
Longbow Hellfire missile
Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR)
1998
H.R. 2266/P.L. 105-56
Section 8008
Apache Longbow radar
AV-8B aircraft
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles
1997
H.R. 3610/P.L. 104-208
Section 8009 of Section
Javelin missiles
101(b) of Title I of Division A Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)
Mk19-3 grenade machine guns
M16A2 rifles
M249 Squad Automatic Weapons
M4 carbine rifles
M240B machine guns
Arleigh Burke (DDG-15 [sic:51] class destroyers
1996
H.R. 2126/P.L. 104-61
Section 8010
UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter
Apache Longbow helicopter
M1A2 tank upgrade
1995
H.R. 4650/P.L. 103-335
Section 8010
MK19-3 grenade machine guns
M16A2 rifles
M249 Squad Automatic Weapons
M4 carbine rifles
1994
H.R. 3116/P.L. 103-139
Section 8011
[none]
1993
H.R. 5504/P.L. 102-396
Section 9013a
Defense Support Satellites 23, 24 and 25
Enhanced Modular Signal Processor
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Multiyear Procurement and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition

Fiscal
Year
Bill/Law
Section on MYP
Program(s) Approved for MYP
1992
H.R. 2521/P.L. 102-172
Section 8013
MK-48 ADCAP Torpedo
UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter
Army Tactical missile
1991
H.R. 5803/P.L. 101-511
Section 8014
Line of Sight-Rear (Avenger)—Pedestal Mounted
Stinger
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)
LCAC Landing Craft
LHD Amphibious Ship
MK-45 Gun Mount/MK-6 Ammo Hoist
NAVSTAR Global Positioning Satellite (GPS)
Defense Support Program Satellites 22 and 23
1990
H.R. 3072/P.L. 101-165
Section 9021a M-1
tank
engines
M-1 tank fire control
Bradley Fighting Vehicle
Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles
Maverick Missile (AGM-65D)
SH-60B/F helicopter
DDG-51 destroyer (two years)
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on text of bills.
a. In H.R. 5504/P.L. 102-396 and H.R. 2072/P.L. 101-165, the general provisions title was Title IX.


Author Contact Information

Ronald O'Rourke
Moshe Schwartz
Specialist in Naval Affairs
Specialist in Defense Acquisition
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610
mschwartz@crs.loc.gov, 7-1463


Congressional Research Service
20

---